3 ms·

Sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires your derived version to have an appropriate copyright notice (and the creator of a derivative work is the copyright owner of the derivative), not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one, much less to include any other information besides a notice of copyright that might appear in a pre-existing a "nag screen". So, no, it doesn't protect nag screens at all.
- carussell 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you think your slanted summary is a better argument than what the license actually says. If it supports your position, just point to the text of the license itself where that support comes from. Your words are not an adequate substitute. > Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires [...] To clarify an important point of fact: Section 2 is additive. It builds upon the terms enumerated in Section 1. You only get to exercise the right to make modifications if you satisfy the extended provisions from Section 2 on top of your obligations from Section 1. To wit, Section 2 allows you to "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". That is, you cannot perform actions under Section 2 without also fulfilling your obligations from Section 1. > not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one This is not true. It would be true if the GPLv2 required that you merely maintain some form of fair attribution. But that's not what it says. You are obligated under Section 1 to "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License". (And you are not allowed under Section 2 to shirk your obligations from Section 1. See above.) If the original author includes a notice as simple as, "This copy of Sublime Text Community Edition is based upon Sublime Text Pro and made available to you under the GNU General Public License, version 2", then no provision of the license permits you to distribute modifications where you've replaced the notice with one of your own, even if you think it's fair. Anyone getting away with this today is only able to do so in cases where the original author is looking the other way because the downstream modifications are more or less in the spirit of the license, even if they aren't technically following it to the letter. That GPLv2 allows for this should not even be surprising—it's similar to the philosophy behind including provisions for Invariant Texts in the GFDL. It's only if you view things through the hazy lens of history where licenses like Creative Commons have shown up and maybe distorted one's general understanding that this comes off as unexpected. Finally: I constantly find that I want to kick myself when I get involved in licensing discussions here that deal in anything other than the most blunted, obvious aspects of FOSS licensing. So this will be my last comment in this thread.

Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires your derived version to have an appropriate copyright notice (and the creator of a derivative work is the copyright owner of the derivative), not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one, much less to include any other information besides a notice of copyright that might appear in a pre-existing a "nag screen". So, no, it doesn't protect nag screens at all.

carussell 10y ago
I'm not sure why you think your slanted summary is a better argument than what the license actually says. If it supports your position, just point to the text of the license itself where that support comes from. Your words are not an adequate substitute. > Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires [...] To clarify an important point of fact: Section 2 is additive. It builds upon the terms enumerated in Section 1. You only get to exercise the right to make modifications if you satisfy the extended provisions from Section 2 on top of your obligations from Section 1. To wit, Section 2 allows you to "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". That is, you cannot perform actions under Section 2 without also fulfilling your obligations from Section 1. > not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one This is not true. It would be true if the GPLv2 required that you merely maintain some form of fair attribution. But that's not what it says. You are obligated under Section 1 to "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License". (And you are not allowed under Section 2 to shirk your obligations from Section 1. See above.) If the original author includes a notice as simple as, "This copy of Sublime Text Community Edition is based upon Sublime Text Pro and made available to you under the GNU General Public License, version 2", then no provision of the license permits you to distribute modifications where you've replaced the notice with one of your own, even if you think it's fair. Anyone getting away with this today is only able to do so in cases where the original author is looking the other way because the downstream modifications are more or less in the spirit of the license, even if they aren't technically following it to the letter. That GPLv2 allows for this should not even be surprising—it's similar to the philosophy behind including provisions for Invariant Texts in the GFDL. It's only if you view things through the hazy lens of history where licenses like Creative Commons have shown up and maybe distorted one's general understanding that this comes off as unexpected. Finally: I constantly find that I want to kick myself when I get involved in licensing discussions here that deal in anything other than the most blunted, obvious aspects of FOSS licensing. So this will be my last comment in this thread.